November 19, 2004
DeLay-ed: Fraud Deserving Of Dishonor
There it is, in black and white, and written into the Preamble of the Republican Contract with America from 1994:
‘To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.’
I guess it bears repeating as we inaugurate this new Red State Age of Moral Certitude, that the principle architect of this groundbreaking populist manifesto would eventually resign after revelations of an adulterous affair with a Congressional aide. Yes, hypocrisy is an appropriate description here, although a more strident term could be invented covering Newt Gingrich’s partisan prosecution of Bill Clinton’s shared ‘personal failings’.
And yes, we need to go back and visit this account, the most recent example of scandal having enveloped again, the Republican leadership in the House of Representative. We are looking for signs or evidence folks, of when and/or how the standards of ethics and the appearance of impropriety applying to the members of the Republican Party, may have possibly gone through an Alberto Gonzales revision.
Quickly reestablishing himself as a prominent player in the Conservative Echo Chamber, Gingrich cut in half his ‘Nixonian Redemptive Probation’ period, although he is still confined to like-minded think tanks and the airways of Fox News as part of his sentencing. Yet, herein must lie the proof of why even the facade of an adherence to a higher moral principle, is an image the Right no longer feels it is necessary to fake.
Maybe we should also take a look at how the ascendancy in power of House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex), his years of arrogant and blatant disregard for ethics and campaign finance regulations, and how this may have established the tenor for such Republican behavior. Three of Delay’s closest aides have now been indicted in Texas for such violations, although there is no clear indication that such charges are imminent against the Texas Congressman. (In other words, Delay is to ethics/PAC violations charges as Barry Bonds is to the BALCO steroids investigation.)
I’m going to go out on a limb here and speculate that being mentioned possibly in the same sentence as convicted former Ohio Congressman James Traficant, is what sent ‘The Hammer’ rifling through the Republican House Rules book.
The Republican Congress Indictment rule (House Democrats are now considering one) was passed in 1993 to be used as a political wedge against the opposition, in light of recent ethical lapses such as those that brought down the powerful Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Il). While Democrats and their supporters are held strictly accountable for similar law breaking and indiscretions, even those leading lights of the Conservative movement (Limbaugh, Bennett and O’Reilly) have benefited from a de facto ethics rule change.
What we do know, is that the level of accountability the House Republicans are willing to bear in this matter, equals that of voting them a pay raise. Behind closed doors and by an official but unrecorded voice vote, House Republicans may eventually regard Tom DeLay politically, as the Black community appears to be behaving towards indicted felon, R&B star R. Kelly.
The Right has composed it’s own updated version of that old adage – do as I say, and no, I have never done it any other way before! John McCain can surprisingly join the chorus of those convinced that the CIA is in need of an overdue housecleaning, but when the new Director signals it’s not political payback for leaks aimed at Bush, then follows some high profile and key Agency resignations, to insists loyalty to the President is paramount – well, you get the picture, right?
If documented evidence of Republican exploits to suppress minority voting gets scant attention from the mainstream media, then this is a fading one news cycle story. Along with it goes the attention to the collateral damage and significant political fallout resulting from the assault on Fallujah, and the implications of new allegations against Coalition troops for murdering unarmed Insurgents, will have throughout the world.
Then again, this is Bush America – the old rules no longer apply.
While Democrats and their supporters are held strictly accountable for similar law breaking and indiscretions, even those leading lights of the Conservative movement (Limbaugh, Bennett and O’Reilly) have benefited from a de facto ethics rule change.
Need I even state that Limbaugh, Bennett and O’Reilly are not members of the House or Senate, and as such, could not have benefitted from any Cangressional procedural rules changes, de facto or not? It’s truly amazing to have had to post this bit of information.
Three of Delay’s closest aides have now been indicted in Texas for such violations, although there is no clear indication that such charges are imminent against the Texas Congressman. (In other words, Delay is to ethics/PAC violations charges as Barry Bonds is to the BALCO steroids investigation.)
Or to put it another way, innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Bert’s post is simply a rambling rant against the Republicans, full of insinuation and rhetoric, but scarce on factual content.
Its possible either that DeLay is guilty, and also possible that this is a political play by an outgoing Texas politician to damage DeLay and the Republicans.
It’s too soon to reach a conclusion on it, since it’s in process. Perhaps those on the rabid left want to forget about the “innocent until proven guilty” standard of our legal system…after all, this case IS about a Republican.
But I’ll go out on a limb: IFFFFF DeLay is found guilty of a crime or of breaking campaign finance rules, then apply the appropriate penalties. But to assume his guilt, and to conflate his actions to the entire Republican party is simply scurrilous.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 19, 2004 01:28 PMBert-
Do I detect a disdain for conservatives?
What is the documented evidence of Republican exploits to suppress minority voting?
Despite being a Republican, I agree with Bert on this one. Tom DeLay isn’t constitutionally obligated to step down in this case, but he bound himself to a code of conduct above and beyond the bare minimum, and he should live up to it. This is just another example of the creeping sense of entitlement that corrupts the powerful.
It also highlights the importance of a respected constitution. In some countries, legislators can treat the constitution with the same disdain that the G.O.P. is now treating its bylaws with. So props to the founding fathers for their wisdom and understanding of human nature.
Posted by: Chops at November 19, 2004 03:28 PMClearly, until Tom Delay is actually convicted of something, he remains innocent. The main issue I have is that House Republicans are now reversing a rule they opted into in 1993 in order to separate themselves, in PR terms, from House Democrats.
I’m just not sure how Republicans can still claim to be the morally and ethically superior party while changing the rules they agreed too when the rules don’t suit them.
Posted by: justin at November 19, 2004 07:44 PMHouse Republicans demonstrated their loyalty to Majority Leader Tom DeLay by changing the laws to protect his corruption. These are the same people who spent $100,000,000 impeaching President Clinton for lying about sex. Talk about RED corruption. And, they call themselves Christians? Give us a break. Not everyone is stupid to believe their hypocrisy.
Posted by: George at November 19, 2004 08:08 PMThe President and every CIA agent should remember one salient fact: That there oath is not to George Bush and his causes, But to the American people, their welfare and defense. If they choose not to do that job, there should be consequences.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 20, 2004 08:28 PMJoe-
What we’re talking about is a double standard for behavior for members of a party and a movement who claim to be among the most rigid adherents to a single, fair, universal standard. If Republicans don’t live up to their own rhetoric, they will lose political strength, and they will bring disdain down upon those kinds of people associated with them, especially if they start covering for them.
Now, nobody’s saying DeLay will get indicted, and nobody’s proved yet he deserves to be, but there is something telling about the Republican’s response to this situation, in that they are changing the rules to protect DeLay, in that they waited until after the election to do it, and in that they felt it necessary to do it at all. Why soften the punishments for a man who’s not got anything indictable about him. It’s a parliamentary version of taking the fifth: it’s a protection, but it’s a dead giveaway you did something of dubious if not illegal nature.
If it is as frivolous as you say, you have nothing to fear. By it’s very nature, such a lawsuit would have poor foundation in fact. But if it is not poorly founded, then whatever the political harm, you should let him get what he deserves. I know you roll your eyes reading that, but you really need to do that, because the last thing the Republicans need is substantive evidence of corruption going all the way to the top and the GOP leadership covering for them. It didn’t exactly work for you the last time. The Republicans should be able to say, “We’re a strong enough party not to rely on crooks, how about you?” Not “We know he’s a crook but his membership in this party means he can do no wrong.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 20, 2004 08:51 PMThanks Chops,
For putting aside you’re partisanship to understand my point. This is not about legality, but the appearance of impropriety. If Tom DeLay were an equally successful major league baseball star, Cooperstown would be lost to him already, I surmise.
I will vehemently deny saying that NYTimes’ David Brooks has a good take, but even his assessment indicates the craven weakness within the party, to stand up to DeLay.
Even in this new Age of Moral Certitude, those self-appointed guardians (Limbaugh, Bennett, O’Reilly) have fallen the hardest from their pedestal - yet display not a scratch. However, I can only hope they may still have caused cracks in the hypocrisy the GOP teeters on.
By casting their lot with Delay’s fate, the House Republicans may just bring down the entire house of cards.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at November 20, 2004 09:45 PMwhile we are at it with republican politics…
can someone please discuss, mabey an editor, the upcoming omnibus spending bill that is CHOCK-FULL o anti-abortion legislation…
smooth work kids…push through sweeping right wing legislation on a bill that if isn’t passed, shuts down half the federal govt….really smooth…
what’s next up? a social security reform bill that defines marriage as a man and a woman?
Posted by: rob at November 21, 2004 06:42 AMI don’t understand how so many on the left relate Bill O’reilly as being far right?
He seems to be conservative on a few fiscal issues, but very liberal on most social issues.
I’m not defending him, just pointing out that on most conservative issues, He’s as confused as the proverbal “monkey with a football”.
Beagle,
I never said he was ‘far right’, but he claimed he declared himself an ‘Independent’ on his last voter registration card, but the actual document appears in Al Franken’s Lying Liars marked Republican.
He claimed he came from a ‘hard scrabbled, working class’ background in Providence, RI, when he actually went to boarding school and his parents well off. He spouts off about morality and decency on his show, but paid off a sexual harassment charge because explicit evidence proved it was not a politically motivated attack against him and Fox.
I don’t know where he stands either, I’m just glad it’s not on my side.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at November 21, 2004 09:57 PMBert:
I know very little about O’Reilly, and I care even less. But for you to include him into a discussion on politicians is wrong, since he is, last time I checked, NOT a politician, but rather an entertainer/media/newsman/clown (you pick which). To compare him to Senators or Congressman is simply illogical.
Secondly, I can’t help but notice how you state unequivocally that he “paid off a sexual harassment charge because explicit evidence proved it was not a politically motivated attack against him and Fox.” By this logic, you must also believe that since Bill Clinton paid off Paula Jones, without admitting guilt, in the same way O’Reilly did, that it must not have been a “politically motivated attack” against him.
I know you’ll come up with a reason to change your logic regarding Clinton, a Democrat. It should just be fun to see how loose your standards become when defending your own.
